American Resistance To Empire

Russia summoned Israeli ambassador over Syria strikes



MOSCOW, March 20 — Russia’s foreign ministry today said it had summoned Israel’s ambassador over air strikes close to Moscow’s forces near the historic Syrian city of Palmyra.

Deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov told Interfax news agency that Ambassador Gary Koren was summoned on Friday and “asked about” the strikes.

The ministry “expressed concern” about the action taking place near Russian military locations, Bogdanov said.

Russia — which is conducting its own bombing campaign in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad — said earlier this month that more than 180 of its troops have started demining around Palmyra’s ancient monuments.

Russia and Israel have set up a “hotline” aimed at avoiding air clashes over Syria and Bogdanov said Moscow “would like this channel to work more effectively” to ensure no “misunderstanding on who is doing what.”

Israeli warplanes struck several targets on Friday, prompting retaliatory Syrian missile launches, in the most serious incident between the two countries since the war began six years ago.

Israel’s military said it had been targeting weapons bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, which backs Assad in Syria.

Syria’s military said it had downed an Israeli plane and hit another as they were carrying out pre-dawn strikes near Palmyra, the famed desert city it recaptured from jihadists this month.

The Israeli military denied that any planes had been hit.

Yesterday, Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened to destroy Syria’s air defence systems “without the slightest hesitation” if there was a similar incident.

Russia has deployed its own high-tech missile defence systems to Syria to protect its forces there. — AFP

Trump 2nd American President To Fight Illegal CIA Abuse of Authority

The New York Times, in a front-page story, said that the president “wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

Whether that quote is accurate or not we don’t know, but it makes sense that after the agency damaged the president’s reputation so badly, he would react with such anger.

If you are a student of history, you already know that the president who swore a vendetta against the Central Intelligence Agency wasn’t Donald Trump, but John F. Kennedy, and that although he did not abolish the agency before his assassination, he did fire its director, Allen Dulles, in an effort to gain control over what was considered a rogue agency that had forced Kennedy’s hand in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

The tangled tentacles of the CIA’s machinations wind their way throughout President Kennedy’s shortened term in office, from the Bay of Pigs through the Mafia assassination attempts against Fidel Castro to Kennedy’s own assassination, and then reappear in the Watergate break-in (five of the so-called Watergate “burglars” had connections to the CIA) and in the secret White House tapes where President Nixon is heard telling his chief of staff to tell CIA director Richard Helms that the arrest of the burglars is “likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for CIA and the country at this time, and for American foreign policy.”

Watergate, in case, you don’t remember, involved a sitting president plotting against his potential opponents by participating in illegal activities to spy on the opposition party, and particularly by using intelligence agency assets to accomplish it.

Yet when President Trump suggested that his predecessor had used spy technology against him, there was shocked outrage — not against President Obama, but against President Trump for suggesting the inconceivable. How… HOW… (the media asked innocently) could anyone ever believe that the CIA would have the audacity to engage in political espionage!

I have no idea if President Trump will be able to prove his accusations. I would not be surprised if he cannot (even if they were true) because, let’s face it, the CIA doesn’t give up its secrets easily — which brings us back to President Kennedy and “the whole Bay of Pigs thing.”

For those of you too young to remember, the Bay of Pigs is shorthand for the April 1961 invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles with the assistance of the CIA. Most people don’t realize that Kennedy’s 1960 presidential opponent, Vice President Richard Nixon, was one of the planners of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nixon was also one of many critics of Kennedy for his last-minute decision not to provide U.S. military air cover for the invasion. That decision doomed the invasion, and turned many Cuban exiles as well as CIA operatives against Kennedy.

It was in March 1960 that President Eisenhower had signed off on “A Program of Covert Action Against the Castro Regime,” and Nixon took at least an oversight role in planning the overthrow of Castro, and almost certainly knew of the assassination attempts that the CIA was planning against Castro in cooperation with the Mafia. Since Nixon and his allies in the Eisenhower administration were confident that he would be elected president in November 1960, they were making plans to overthrow the Castro regime which they thought Nixon himself would be carrying out.

It requires some speculation to ponder what adjustments the CIA made when Kennedy instead was elected, and just how they revealed their plans to the new administration. Remember that Allen Dulles had been appointed director of the CIA by President Eisenhower in 1953 and was intimately involved with the 1953 coup in Iran, the 1954 coup in Guatemala, the assassination plots against Castro, and the mind-control project code-named MK-Ultra. Moreover, documents released in 2004 and reported by Tim Weiner in his 2007 book “Legacy of Ashes” proved that Dulles had authorized the CIA to break into Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s office and fed disinformation to him in order to discredit him. The question to be asked is just how comfortable would Dulles and the CIA be about revealing such information to the new president. Would they share it all, or would they keep him in the dark?

Unfortunately, the labyrinthine world of the covert intelligence agencies is too complex to be analyzed in one brief newspaper column, but suffice it to say that Kennedy was leery of the CIA from day one of his administration, and by the time of the Bay of Pigs, he had come to the conclusion that he could not trust the agency. Thus, his famous proclamation that he would “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces,” as reported by the New York Times in 1966, three years after Kennedy’s assassination.

What is fascinating to anyone concerned about the power of what is now being called the “Deep State” is that there are CIA fingerprints all over the Kennedy assassination as well as Watergate. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by President Kennedy, was appointed by President Johnson to serve on the Warren Commission that investigated the murder of JFK. Yet neither Dulles nor his successor John McCone revealed to the Warren Commission that the CIA had engaged in assassination attempts against Castro, despite the immediate relevance of this information to the investigation. Remember that Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s accused assassin, had public ties to Castro and Cuba. Since it was known that Castro was aware of the CIA plot against him, it gave him a motive to kill Kennedy in revenge. Moreover, both the CIA and the FBI covered up their own involvement with Oswald, a former defector to the Soviet Union.

The 1995 book, “Oswald and the CIA,” by former military intelligence officer John Newman provides invaluable insight into the close relationship between the accused assassin and the spy agency. Other books have laid out the case for how CIA assets, possibly but not necessarily including Oswald, could have turned against Kennedy for his abandonment of the invasion force at the Bay of Pigs.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention that the CIA has spent many years cultivating assets in both the foreign and U.S. media in order to promote their own agenda. Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote an extensive expose, “The CIA and the Media,” in 1977 that should send chills up the spines of anyone who takes the word of the various news agencies as gospel. Bernstein exposes the complicity of, among others, The New York Times (“the Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers”), CBS (“unquestionably the CIA’s most valuable broadcasting asset”) and Time magazine (which “agreed to provide jobs and credentials for … CIA operatives.”)

The recognition that the Central Intelligence Agency has freely used assets in the news industry should give everyone pause. If the CIA lied about its involvement in various covert operations in the past, and if it used news media operatives to misdirect public attention from its misdeeds in the past, how can anyone be so naive as to accept the narrative being offered against President Trump today?

We are told that it is ridiculous that Obama would wiretap Trump, and that the intelligence agencies would admit it publicly if it had happened. But as President Trump reminded everyone Friday, according to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, Obama ordered the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone in 2010. The German government entered into an extensive investigation of these allegations but, according to the Guardian newspaper, finally gave up because they could not penetrate the secrecy of the spy agencies. As reported by The Guardian, “The federal prosecutor’s office received virtually no cooperation in its investigation from either the NSA or Germany’s equivalent, the BND.”

Yet we expect the National Security Agency or the CIA or the FBI to gladly cooperate with congressional investigators, or even more absurdly the media, and admit to carrying out a political vendetta against Trump? That is what is truly ridiculous.

Trump, like Kennedy, is intent on effecting change across a wide swath of the government. The entrenched bureaucrats known as the “Deep State” resented both Kennedy and Trump. Kennedy fought back hard against the CIA and against J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Whether that cost him his life, we may never know, but history does teach us that conspiracies exist. Unfortunately, anyone who blindly accepts the word of either the mainstream media or their “sources” (bosses?) in the intelligence community simply doesn’t understand history.

Frank Miele is the managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Montana.

The soul of our country



Steve and Cokie Roberts

Donald Trump made this promise on the campaign trail: “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”

All politicians make promises they cannot keep, but this one is a particularly devastating deception. The health care bill drafted by the House, and enthusiastically endorsed by the president, makes major cuts in Medicaid, the joint federal/state program that protects the most vulnerable Americans.

Like so many of Trump’s proposals, this one is not just bad public policy. It’s also immoral, violating the most basic obligation of Christianity, described in the New Testament as caring for “the least of these brothers and sisters.”

As John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We’re talking about lives. … We better be careful we’re not losing the soul of our country because we’re playing politics.”

The health care debate has focused primarily on proposed alterations to the insurance system established by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but the Medicaid issue is equally important. Under Obamacare, states could utilize federal funds to expand Medicaid eligibility to families earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. Thirty-one states took advantage of the option, adding about 11 million Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

Under the House bill (call it Ryan/Trumpcare), that expansion would be phased out in 2020. According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 5 million people would be forced off Medicaid in the first year, and 15 million would lose coverage by 2026.

Speaker Paul Ryan defends his plan by saying, “We’re going to have a free market and you buy what you want to buy.” Nice words, which totally ignore the fact that most of those covered by Medicaid cannot afford any health insurance at any price.

But that’s not the whole story. Ryan has spent his whole career plotting to do exactly what Trump said he would not do: reduce entitlements. By abandoning his promise, Trump has reinforced the impression that he doesn’t really care about policy at all.

What he cares about is winning. So he’s bought into Ryan/Trumpcare because he thinks it’s the only health plan with a chance of passing.

Fortunately, a number of Republicans are appalled, especially governors who actually have to solve real problems in their states. They cannot afford Ryan’s theological crusade against government spending or Trump’s refusal to recognize the human misery this proposal would entail.

Many of those governors agree with Kasich, who notes that 700,000 Ohioans have gained insurance coverage under Medicaid expansion. “If they don’t get coverage, they end up in the emergency room, they end up sicker, more expensive,” he told state business leaders. “I mean, we pay one way or another. And so this has been a good thing for Ohio.”

Attacks on Medicaid often echo the old debate about welfare, implying that beneficiaries are able-bodied slackers who don’t want to work. Of course some people game the system, but they’re far from a majority. Many suffer from a range of disabling conditions: physical handicaps, mental illness and substance abuse, for example. Kasich says a “big chunk” of those covered in Ohio “are mentally ill and drug-addicted and have chronic diseases.”

Impoverished seniors who cannot afford nursing care are also major Medicaid recipients. Under Ryan/Trumpcare, says Tom Wolf, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, “You’re either basically consigning the seniors to less care or the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to spend more, or a combination of both. That’s a real problem.”

Those real problems are not limited to governors who would have to administer Medicaid under Ryan/Trumpcare. The Republicans who vote for it also stand to pay a large price: Their souls, as well as their seats, could well be at stake.


Steve and Cokie Roberts: can be reached at

Somali Pirates Surrender Tanker Seized Off Yemeni Island of Socotra


Aris 13The hijacked product tanker Aris 13 was released by pirates without condition and ransom after gunshots with local naval forces. The vessel and its eight Sri Lankan crew were freed and vessel proceeded to the port of destination in Mogadishu. The releasing of the tanker happened several hours after naval troops from the semi-autonomous state of Puntland attacked the pirates and tried to stop a boat carrying reinforcement pirates to the ship. The pirates opened fire and the naval troop responded, which caused injury of four people. Following the gunbattle the pirates moved the vessel from its anchorage and tried to negotiate for its releasing.

“There has been discussion going on after the gunfight of this afternoon … We pulled our forces back and so the pirates went away”, said the director general of the maritime police force for Somalia’s semi-autonomous northern region of Puntland, Abdirahman Mohamud Hassan.

After several hours the vessel was released without paying a ransom. The pirates said that they had agreed to forego a ransom after learning that Somali businessmen had hired the Aris 13, which was taking oil from Djibouti to the Somali capital Mogadishu. Pirates have traditionally been wary of tangling with Somalia’s powerful businessmen.

“After we came to know that the Somali traders hired the oil tanker, we released it without a ransom”, said representative of the pirates, called Abdullahi.

The local authorities are investigating the root cause of the accident. It is not yet known is the pirates were professionals or just fishermen.

More about hijacking of tanker Aris 13:
Product tanker Aris 13 hijacked by Somali pirates in Gulf of Aden [14/03]
Master of hijacked tanker Aris 13 get in contact with EU Naval Force [16/03]

Hillary (Democrats) Smells Blood In the Water, Sensing Trump Vulnerability

[And she got a new HAIRCUT!]

[Exposing The Clinton/Obama Scheme To Wage Political War On Donald Trump]

Hillary Clinton says she’s ‘ready to come out of the woods’




SCRANTON, Pa. – Hillary Clinton said Friday she’s “ready to come out of the woods” and help Americans find common ground.

Clinton’s gradual return to the public spotlight following her presidential election loss continued with a St. Patrick’s Day speech in her late father’s Pennsylvania hometown of Scranton.

“I’m like a lot of my friends right now, I have a hard time watching the news,” Clinton told an Irish women’s group.

But she urged a divided country to work together to solve problems, recalling how, as first lady, she met with female leaders working to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

“I do not believe that we can let political divides harden into personal divides. And we can’t just ignore, or turn a cold shoulder to someone because they disagree with us politically,” she said.

Friday night’s speech was one of several she is to deliver in the coming months, including a May 26 commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The Democrat also is working on a book of personal essays that will include some reflections on her loss to Donald Trump.

Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York, two days after losing the election to Donald Trump, quipped she had wanted to stay in the woods, “but you can only do so much of that.”

She told the Society of Irish Women that it’ll be up to citizens, not a deeply polarized Washington, to bridge the political divide.

“I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody to keep going,” said Clinton.

Clinton was received warmly in Scranton, where her grandfather worked in a lace mill. Her father left Scranton for Chicago in search of work during the Great Depression, but returned often. Hillary Clinton spent summers at the family’s cottage on nearby Lake Winola.

She fondly recalled watching movies stretched across a bedsheet in a neighbor’s yard, and told of how the cottage had a toilet but no shower or tub.

“Don’t tell anybody this, but we’d go down to the lake,” she said.

Saudis Murder Boatload of Somali Refugees Off the Coast of Yemen

LCRD condemns Saudi airstrike on Somali refugees





SANA’A, March 18 (Saba) – The Legal Center for Rights and Development (LCRD) strongly condemned Thursday night air Saudi airstrike on Somali refugees off Yemen’s coast of Hodeida, in a statement obtained by Saba on Saturday.

“This was the latest in a series of war crimes committed by Saudi aggression against civilian targets,” read the statement , the bombing of the Saudi aggression in May 2015 refugees headquarters of UNICEF in Midi region.

The statement called on the United Nations and international organizations to protect human rights and do their responsibilities toward stopping Saudi barbaric massacres against the civilians in Yemen, considering targeting Somali refugees as a new war crime.





SANA’A, March 18 (Saba) – The National organization for rights and freedoms on Saturday stressed that targeting African refugees on their boat off the Yemeni coast of Hodeida was a disgrace to the United Nations Security Council.

The organization said in a statement received by Saba that targeting the boat carrying dozens of African migrants on Thursday night by the alliance of Saudi aggression was a heinous war crime, condemning the fresh new war crimes.

The statement denounced the continuation of war crimes and violations Against the Yemeni people through repeatedly targeting civilian boats of fishermen and African refugees.

The statement called on the United Nations and its Security Council to bear responsibility towards stopping the barbaric war, bloody war crimes, economic blockade against the humanity and the Yemeni people.

Deadly Mosque Airstrike In Idlib, Syria Blamed On US Navy

[US admits Syria airstrike that killed 46 but denies targeting mosque ]

Conflicting claims on a U.S. role in deadly airstrike near mosque in Syria



Aftermath of airstrike at mosque in Jenneh area in northern Syria on March 17, 2017; attack killed dozens



BEIRUT — An airstrike at a mosque in a rebel-held area of northern Syria on Thursday killed at least 35 people, first responders and activists said.

The Syrian Civil Defense, volunteer paramedics known as the White Helmets, said first responders were racing to the scene after the airstrike in the Jeeneh area, near the rebel-held province of Idlib. It said at least 35 people were killed.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 46 people were killed, mainly civilians.

Bilal Abdul Kareem, an American journalist with close links to militant Islam groups in Syria, is reporting that he is at the mosque. He put the death toll at 56.

The Reuters news agency reports that the powerful Syrian rebel group Ahrar al-Sham said Friday the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind the mosque attack.

U.S. officials say the strike killed dozens of militants and they’re investigating reports that civilians were killed. U.S. Army Maj. Josh Jacques, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, said the U.S. did not target or strike a mosque.

“We targeted an al Qaeda gathering across the street from a mosque. The mosque does not appear to be damaged following the strike,” said U.S. Army Maj. Josh Jacques, a U.S. Central Command spokesman. “We are aware of the reports of civilian casualties and we are looking into it.”

The U.S. Central Command based in Tampa, Florida, said separately that U.S. forces killed “several terrorists” in a strike at an al Qaeda meeting place in Idlib. It said in a statement that Idlib has been a significant safe haven for al Qaeda in recent years. The U.S. has struck dozens of locations in northwestern Syria in the past, targeting al Qaeda-linked militants.

Col. John J. Thomas, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, told CBS News correspondent David Martin there was a mosque across the street from the building the U.S. hit on March 16. He said post-strike photos show two craters and half the target building destroyed, with the small mosque across the street still standing.

However other reports indicate the building may have been a newer annex to the old mosque.










The Pentagon released this image of a March 16 airstrike in al-Jinah, Syria. In the center is the building struck in the airstrake, which the Navy says was the site of an al Qaeda senior leader meeting. The Navy says they deliberately did not target the mosque at the left edge of the photo, and the area was extensively surveilled prior to the strike.–Pentagon

[If the mosque is the building at the top left of the photo, then one end of that building obviously caught the blast debris, as evidenced by the black patch extending from the bomb craters to the building.–ed. ]

Jeeneh is in the western Aleppo countryside which, along with Idlib, is home to hundreds of thousands of Syrians displaced by fighting in other areas.

Russian and Syrian aircraft are known to operate in the opposition-held region.

The airstrike on the mosque came a day after suicide attacks in the capital, Damascus, killed at least 30 people on the sixth anniversary of the start of the Syrian conflict.

The civil war has killed about 400,000 people, wounded more than a million and displaced half the country’s population.

%d bloggers like this: